Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11958/2016dismissed

Virmani Kumar And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

2016-04-19Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11958 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -345 Year- 2015 Thana -DIGHA District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Virmani Kumar son of Sakal Dev Rai, resident of Kurji Gate No. 68, Police Station - Digha, District - Patna.

2. Mukesh Kumar @ Nepali son of Sakal Deep Prasad, resident of Makhdumpur Gate No. 89, Police Station - Digha, District - Patna.

3. Ashok Kumar son of Kailash Prasad resident of North Mandiri, Police Station - Buddha Colony, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anita Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 19-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 387, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 345 of 2015.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated as a dispute arose between the parties over construction of boundary wall by the petitioner no. 3 whose land is adjoining the house of the informant.

4. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11958 of 2016 (3) dt.19-04-2016 informant appearing suo motu submits that the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail as they have been misusing the interim orders as the learned Court below had directed no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners by order dated 02.12.2015 but, later on a requisition has been filed for issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioners.

5. Having regard to the above as well as criminal antecedents of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Bail petition stands dismissed.

Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) U